IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0223669.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative cost analysis of point-of-care versus laboratory-based testing to initiate and monitor HIV treatment in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Simeon
  • Monisha Sharma
  • Jienchi Dorward
  • Jessica Naidoo
  • Ntuthu Dlamini
  • Pravikrishnen Moodley
  • Natasha Samsunder
  • Ruanne V Barnabas
  • Nigel Garrett
  • Paul K Drain

Abstract

Background: The number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) in need of treatment monitoring in low-and-middle-income countries has been rapidly expanding, placing an increasing burden on laboratories. Promising new point-of-care (POC) test have the potential to reduce laboratory workloads, but the implementation cost is uncertain. We sought to estimate the costs of decentralized POC testing compared to centralized laboratory testing for PLHIV initiating treatment in South Africa. Methods: We conducted a microcosting analyses comparing clinic-based POC testing to centralized laboratory testing for HIV viral load, creatinine, and CD4 count monitoring. We completed time-and-motion studies to assess staff time for sample collection and processing. Instrument costs were estimated assuming five-year lifespans and we applied a 3% annual discount rate. Total costs and cost per patient were estimated over a five-year period: the first year of ART initiation and four years of routine HIV monitoring, following World Health Organization ART monitoring guidelines. Results: We estimated that per-patient costs of POC HIV viral load, CD4, and creatinine tests were USD $25, $11, and $9, respectively, assuming a clinic volume of 50 patients initiated per month. At centralized laboratories, per-patient costs of POC HIV viral load, CD4, and creatinine tests were USD $26, $6, $3. Total monitoring costs of all testing over a 5-year period was $45 higher for POC testing compared to centralized laboratory testing ($210 vs $166). Conclusions: POC testing for HIV care and treatment can be feasibly implemented within clinics in South Africa, particularly those with larger patient volumes. POC HIV viral load costs are similar to lab-based testing while CD4 count and creatinine testing are more costly as POC tests. Our cost estimates are useful to policymakers in planning resource allocation and can inform cost-effectiveness analyses of POC testing.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Simeon & Monisha Sharma & Jienchi Dorward & Jessica Naidoo & Ntuthu Dlamini & Pravikrishnen Moodley & Natasha Samsunder & Ruanne V Barnabas & Nigel Garrett & Paul K Drain, 2019. "Comparative cost analysis of point-of-care versus laboratory-based testing to initiate and monitor HIV treatment in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-15, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223669
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223669
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223669
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223669&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0223669?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lara Vojnov & Jessica Markby & Caroline Boeke & Lindsay Harris & Nathan Ford & Trevor Peter, 2016. "POC CD4 Testing Improves Linkage to HIV Care and Timeliness of ART Initiation in a Public Health Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, May.
    2. Bruce Larson & Kathryn Schnippel & Buyiswa Ndibongo & Lawrence Long & Matthew P Fox & Sydney Rosen, 2012. "How to Estimate the Cost of Point-of-Care CD4 Testing in Program Settings: An Example Using the Alere Pima™ Analyzer in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-8, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lara Vojnov & Jessica Markby & Caroline Boeke & Lindsay Harris & Nathan Ford & Trevor Peter, 2016. "POC CD4 Testing Improves Linkage to HIV Care and Timeliness of ART Initiation in a Public Health Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, May.
    2. Malin Malagun & Gideon Nano & Caroline Chevallier & Ragagalo Opina & Gola Sawiya & Joseph Kivavia & Albina Kalinoe & Kathalina Nathaniel & Oscillah Kaminiel & John Millan & Andrea Carmone & Mary Dini , 2014. "Multisite Evaluation of Point of Care CD4 Testing in Papua New Guinea," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0223669. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.